Comment Re:We all know the real reason (Score 1) 106
You're a manager.
A manager wouldn't know good code from bad.
A good manager would... Sadly there are a lot of bad managers out there.
You're a manager.
A manager wouldn't know good code from bad.
A good manager would... Sadly there are a lot of bad managers out there.
So just to be clear here, are you saying that if I follow a person around as he goes about his day in the public sphere, then I am "actively stalking and harassing" and that is not to be allowed, but that if I set up an array of cameras which films that person as he goes about his day in the public sphere, then I am "passively filming" and that is entirely okay?
"You do realize journalists have no rights beyond what a normal citizen has?"
Likewise, you do realize that Flock and Axon have no rights beyond what normal citizens have?
There is a grey area here.
Yes, following someone around in public can be considered harassment if it were done with the intent of harassing or disrupting the person in question. A journalist with a legitimate interest can use that as an excuse provided they were not intentionally being disruptive or harassing in order to get a story. If a "reporter" starts getting in your way to force you to react and does so repeatedly, this is harassment.
Intent has a lot to do with it, if you're following someone around without cause then you're pretty much on the wrong side of it.
Also, a good investigative reporter (or private dick) doesn't want to be noticed by the person they're surveilling. It tends to taint the results of the investigation (and here in the UK the police can use the results of a journalists investigation in court) and this affects their livelihood as no legitimate news agency wants to deal with a reporter who is a well known nuisance (as they can be sued as well as the "reporter" in question).
Mostly because the online dispatch system works more reliably than trying to phone a taxi desk, especially if you are away from familiar situations, getting someone who is unintelligible, and who misunderstands the pickup and dropoff points.
In most countries, taxi services automated their dispatch years ago... This is not an excuse to support illegal services that are both against competition and seek to reduce the rights of workers.
Ever since I've lived in the UK, you've been able to book taxis and minicabs online. It is more recent to Australia but Australia is hopelessly stuck in the past.
The use of gmail.com should have been a dead giveaway.
That means a minority of drivers are forcing their preference on the majority.
I think they still need a vote to accept that union as their collective bargaining representative. That does not appear to have happened yet. And that's where the 70% have their say.
Any ide what a CEO must make these days?
Nearly as much as a union official, I imagine.
Following and filming a publicly funded worker on the job is not harassment.
Why stop at workers when pursuing public funds?
"Where are you going with that EBT card, sir?"
Didn't read the details of the appeal. But it's possible that SBF's counsel is appealing the rejection handed to them by the 2nd Circuit Court. Which would make this USSC business. Appealing is the defence counsel's right. And duty to their client, if they don't want to start an "ineffective counsel" case.
If the 2nd Circuit Court did their job correctly, the USSC may refuse his appeal. I have mixed feelings about this. If the Supreme Court could take the case but then slap an extra 10 years on SBFs sentence for wasting their time (frivolous filing) I'd be in favor of it.
Don't feel too bad. Einstein did the same thing with his "cosmological constant". Trying to hang onto an outdated idea that the universe was eternal and static. Lemaitre and Hubble demonstrated that he was wrong. And he accepted that.
> fact you cannot fire anyone on the spot in Europe
Yes, you can.
You just need to have a valid (ie. legal) reason to do so.
Firing employees for gross negligence must happen within 48 hours of fact discovery, so on the spot works.
on the spot != at will.
Yep, get caught posting company secrets online, expect to get marched out the door immediately.
Employee protection laws simply mean I can't be fired because the CEO wants to make themselves look scary.
Your spittle flecked Musk rage makes you oblivious to the fact you cannot fire anyone on the spot in Europe.
And your saliva filled fellatio of Musk makes you oblivious... I mean in general, not just about Europe.
I could get fired today if I did something illegal, dangerous, or blatantly stupid (like sexual harassment or threats). Hell, you can even be fired if you're bringing the company into disrepute, like becoming a far right thug (the freedom of association which is enshrined in the UK and Europe includes the freedom not to be associated with something).
What I can't be fired for is when the CEO is having a bad day, wants to get their jollies or if the company wants to cut costs (in that case, they'll need to make me redundant, which has some legal responsibilities).
If the CEO decides she doesn't like someone, she won't be able to "Musk" employees as easily as in the United States.
You're saying that like it's a bad thing.
A CEO in Europe is expected to act like an adult, so they are expected to deal with disagreements with colleagues and employees as an adult. Often this means compromising and understanding the other side. This has the unfortunate side effect of making the CEO better informed and thus leading to better decisions being made. I know this is hard for many Americans to understand as it seems that emotional maturity isn't a requirement for leadership positions over there.
Depth of field =/= field of view.
They are related by the optics' parameters, but two different effects.
"Don't discount flying pigs before you have good air defense." -- jvh@clinet.FI